Originally Posted by
dracir1
While on the surface, your argument makes sense, in practicality is does not. And, it's quite silly to propose such.
The airline must, first and foremost, make money. A 350 w/ 100 FC seats won't. It's been tried. EVERYONE knows this so proposing it to make a point is the definition of a strawman.
We should be paid commensurate w/ the # of people the aircraft can carry. How much each passenger paid, whether the plane has wifi, whatever, is NOT our concern. We ensure the safety of 247 people on a fully loaded 321. It's that simple. The business model of HOW the company makes it's money is independent of the # of people flying. And if BB wants to lower the seat count just to pay less, he better be sure that plan will work. Otherwise,
We should be paid 767 rates. If we have to MODIFY the business model to do so, then I expect a management team that is intelligent/savvy enough to make those adjustments.
Duly noted. But you’re asking to set a precedent that doesn’t yet exist. Contracts have historically classified a/c by MGTOW and to change that will take either the company agreeing to it (won’t happen), a mediator convincing the company to agree to it (won’t happen), or us being released to strike and insisting on it (also highly unlikely). I’m sticking to my original expectations, pay me what an A321neo pilot is paid elsewhere. It’s a number that’s already been agreed upon at other carriers and an argument can be made for it in mediation and when requesting to be released to strike. Expecting to get 767 rates, no matter how convincing you make the argument, is a setup for disappointment.